DOCSLIB.ORG

Anglo-Saxon Constitutional History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anglo-Saxon Constitutional History English Legal History—Outline (former l16) 11/5/2018 Page 1 THE DEPOSITION OF KINGS 1. The slow changes in the English constitution of the 14th and 15th centuries: a. the development of a bicameral Parliament b. its gradual growth of involvement in taxation and legislation and the of the custom of consulting it on great matters of the realm. c. the growth of the power and, at least to a certain extent, of the independence of the departments of state (the chancery and the exchequer) and of the courts d. the attempt of the magnates to control the departments of state by controlling appointments, and of the king to control both the departments of state and the magnates through the wardrobe and chamber—and of the ultimate failure, at least in the 14th century, of both efforts e. the rise in the middle of the 14th century of the importance of the council. In the Lancastrian period two lines of authority emerge, which did not conflict: one between the signet and the secretary, the other between the privy seal and the council, both leading ultimately to the great seal and the chancery. f. the experimentatation of Edward III with chamber finance and the return of chamber finance in the reign of Edward IV a hundred years later and the increasingly tight control that Henry VII had over finance. 2. The medieval depositions: a. Edward II—1327. b. Richard II—1399. c. Henry VI—1460. (Not a deposition, an act of accord, though a deposition of sorts took place in March of 1461. Coronation of Edward IV in June.) d. Edward V--1483. 3. Edward II—Two sets of writs summoned a Parliament in the king’s name to meet at Westminster on 7 January 1327. The Parliament assembled but the king remained at Kenilworth in Warwickshire. a. Was what assembled at Westminster a Parliament? b. The chronicles tell us of an unsuccessful attempt to get Edward II to come to the Parliament. c. They tell us of sermons, of charges against Edward, of an announcement that he had been deposed by the magnates, clergy and people, of a massive swearing of loyalty to Edward III. d. They also tell of a commission of bishops, barons, clergy, knights and burgesses who went to Edward and secured his abdication in favor of his son. e. Much depends on whether the events in the assembly, be it a Parliament or not, took place before or after the deputation to Kenilworth, or whether there were two deputations. f. The earliest official version of what happened (Mats. p. VI–101): - 1 - English Legal History—Outline (former l16) 11/5/2018 Page 2 “Whereas Sir Edward, recently king of England, of his free will and by the common counsel and assent of the prelates, earls, barons, and other nobles, and of the whole community of the realm, has abdicated the government of the realm; and whereas he has granted and wills that the government of the realm should devolve upon his eldest son and heir, Sir Edward, who should govern, reign and be crowned king; and whereas all the great men have performed their homage [to the said heir]: we proclaim and publish the peace of our said lord, Sir Edward, the son [of King Edward]; and on his part we command and firmly enjoin each and every one, on pain of disherision and loss of life or members, not to break the peace of our said lord the king; for he is and shall be ready to enforce right for each and every one of the said kingdom in all matters and against all persons, both great and small. So, if any one has some demand to make of another, let him make it by means of [legal] action, without resorting to force or violence.” 4. Richard II—From the Parliament Roll of 1399 (Mats., pp. VI-119 to VI-121, with additions): [1] At the parliament summoned and held at Westminster by the King Henry IV on Monday, the feast of St. Faith the virgin (which was the 6th day of October), in the first year of the reign of the same King Henry, the same King Henry was seated on his royal seat in the Great Hall of Westminster. In his presence and in the presence of the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons, who had come there by the authority and summons of the parliament, and of several other gentle and common folk who were there in great number, Thomas of Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, recalled how for the Tuesday just passed, the day after the feast of St. Michael, the feast of St. Jerome the doctor [September 30], the king, Richard the second after the conquest, had summoned his parliament to be held there, which summons was of no force or effect because of the acceptance of the renunciation made by the said King Richard and of the deposition of the same King Richard which was made on the Tuesday aforesaid, as appears more fully in the record and process of it made and enrolled in this roll of parliament. a. A committee representing the estates of the realm accepted Richard’s abdication in favor of Henry (Mats., pp. VI-119 to VI-121). [10] MEMORANDUM that on Monday on the feast of St. Michael the archangel [September 29] in the twenty-third year of the reign of King Richard II, the spiritual and temporal lords and other notable persons, to wit, [the names listed include an archbishop, a bishop, two earls, two barons, a prior, an abbot, two justices of the Common Bench, two doctors of canon law, two knights and two notaries public] were by advice and consent deputed for the below-described acts from a gathering at Westminster, in the usual place of council, of spiritual and temporal lords, judges and others skilled both in canon and civil law and in the laws of the kingdom. About the ninth striking of the clock they came into the presence of the said King Richard who was in the Tower of London. [11] The earl of Northumberland, as spokesman for the group with him as set forth above, recited before the king how the king while at liberty at Conway in North Wales promised Sir Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, and the said earl of Northumberland that he was willing to yield and renounce the crown of England and France and his royal majesty because of his inability and insufficiency which he had confessed there and that he thought that this should be arranged as to the best manner and form by which he could do this according to the best advice of experts. The king replied before the said lords and others mentioned above to this kindly and said that he wished to do effectively what he had promised before at Conway. Nevertheless, he wished to have a talk - 2 - English Legal History—Outline (former l16) 11/5/2018 Page 3 with Henry, duke of Lancaster1 and the above-said archbishop, his kinsmen,2 before he fulfilled a promise of this kind. He asked also that a copy of the cession which was to make be given to him so that he might be able to deliberate on it in the meantime. When a copy had been given him, the aforesaid lords and others retired to their lodgings. [12] Meanwhile on that day after lunch the king eagerly sought after the arrival of the aforesaid duke of Lancaster, and he waited for it some time. Finally, the same duke of Lancaster, the lords and persons named above, and even the said archbishop of Canterbury, came to the presence of the said king in the aforesaid Tower, [three additional named barons] many others also being present there at the time. And after the same king spoke with said duke and archbishop of Canterbury apart (and he seemed to those standing around to show a cheerful face while he was among them), then the said king, all those present having been summoned, said publicly before them that he was prepared to renounce and cede according to his promise made as set forth above. Then quickly — although he could have, as he was told by others, made the renunciation and cession, which had been reduced to a schedule of parchment, through someone else deputed as his spokesman so that he could avoid the labor of long reading — nonetheless, the same king willingly, it seems, and with a smiling countenance, holding the schedule in his hand, said he wished to read it himself, and he distinctly read it through. He absolved his liegemen, he renounced, he ceded, he swore, and he said and mentioned other things in the reading, and signed with his own hand, as is more fully contained in the said schedule, the contents of which follow in these words: [The formal renunciation is three paragraphs long, and we haven’t time to read it here. The wording is of some interest.] [14] And immediately the king added these words to the aforesaid renunciation and cession, that if it were within his power he would that the said duke of Lancaster succeed him in the realm. But because this was not in his power, as he said, he asked the said archbishop of York and the bishop of Hereford, whom he previously made his agents, to declare and announce the cession and renunciation to all estates of the said kingdom, to announce to the people his intent and desire in this regard.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oligarchic Democracy Call for Papers
    CALL FOR PAPERS Constitutional Responses to the Crisis of Representation and Oligarchic Democracy Introduction This Call for Papers is issued by the Constitution Building Programme of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), as part of a research project on Constitutional Responses to the Crisis of Representation and Oligarchic Democracy. The project seeks to examine the problem of ‘oligarchic democracy’ and to consider whether, and how, constitutional design may provide a useful corrective to the oligarchic tendencies in liberal-democracies. The expectation is that the papers will inspire a focused debate around the issue of oligarchic democracy and anti-oligarchic constitution-making. Selected papers will be synthesized into one report that will be addressed to a mixed audience of academics and reflective practitioners in various fields of constitutional practice, whether as constitutional lawyers, politicians, international advisors, or civil society activists working in constitutional reform, public policy or poverty-reduction fields. It is also intended that the best papers will be selected for inclusion in an edited volume or special edition of an academic journal. Papers should be written in English. The length of each paper should between 5000 and 8000 words, including all notes and references. Papers are invited in response to any aspect arising from or connected with any of the five thematic areas outlined in the attached Framing Document. It is expected that there will be a panel of the workshop discussing each of these five thematic areas. Selected applicants will be invited to present their papers at an Authors’ Workshop to be held in The Netherlands during 2017, with a view to eventual publication on the International IDEA Constitution Building website (www.constitutionnet.org).
    [Show full text]
  • Noble Conceptions of Politics in Eighteenth-Century Sweden (Ca 1740–1790)
    charlotta wolff Noble conceptions of politics in eighteenth-century Sweden (ca 1740–1790) Studia Fennica Historica The Finnish Literature Society (SKS) was founded in 1831 and has, from the very beginning, engaged in publishing operations. It nowadays publishes literature in the fields of ethnology and folkloristics, linguistics, literary research and cultural history. The first volume of the Studia Fennica series appeared in 1933. Since 1992, the series has been divided into three thematic subseries: Ethnologica, Folkloristica and Linguistica. Two additional subseries were formed in 2002, Historica and Litteraria. The subseries Anthropologica was formed in 2007. In addition to its publishing activities, the Finnish Literature Society maintains research activities and infrastructures, an archive containing folklore and literary collections, a research library and promotes Finnish literature abroad. Studia fennica editorial board Anna-Leena Siikala Markku Haakana Timo Kaartinen Pauli Kettunen Leena Kirstinä Teppo Korhonen Kati Lampela Editorial Office SKS P.O. Box 259 FI-00171 Helsinki www.finlit.fi Charlotta Wolff Noble conceptions of politics in eighteenth-century Sweden (ca 1740–1790) Finnish Literature Society • Helsinki Studia Fennica Historica 15 The publication has undergone a peer review. The open access publication of this volume has received part funding via Helsinki University Library. © 2016 Charlotta Wolff and SKS License CC-BY-NC-ND A digital edition of a printed book first published in 2008 by the Finnish Literature Society. Cover Design: Timo Numminen EPUB Conversion: eLibris Media Oy ISBN 978-952-222-092-9 (Print) ISBN 978-952-222-782-9 (PDF) ISBN 978-952-222-781-2 (EPUB) ISSN 0085-6835 (Studia Fennica) ISSN 1458-526X (Studia Fennica Historica) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21435/sfh.15 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND license.
    [Show full text]
  • Serfdom and State Power in Imperial Russia
    Roger Bartlett Serfdom and State Power in Imperial Russia The institution of serfdom has been a central and much debated feature of early modern Russian history: it has sometimes been described as Russia’s ‘peculiar institution’, as central to the Russian experience as black slavery has been to the American.1 It is striking, however, that the rise and dominance of serfdom within Muscovite/Russian society coincided closely in historical terms with the rise to European eminence and power of the Muscovite state and Russian Empire. The subjection of the peasantry to its landlord masters was finally institutionalized in 1649, at a time when for most of the rest of Europe Muscovy was a little-known and peripheral state, in John Milton’s words, ‘the most northern Region of Europe reputed civil’.2 When Peter I proclaimed Russia an empire, in 1721, it had displaced Sweden to become the leading state of Northern Europe; one hundred years later Russia was the premier European land power. Its loss of international status after the Crimean War in 1856 helped to precipitate the abolition of serfdom (1861); but the ‘Great Reforms’ of the 1860s did not enable it to regain the international position achieved after the Napoleonic Wars. Thus the period of history from the mid-seventeenth to mid-nineteenth centuries, when serfdom became a securely entrenched legal and economic institution, was also the period in which Russia — the Muscovite state and Russian Empire — became relatively more powerful than at any other time in its history before 1945. This article seeks to examine some of the features of serfdom in Russia, to look briefly at its place in the structure and dynamics of Russian society, and to investigate the relationship between the establish- ment of serfdom in practice and the success of Russian govern- ments both in domestic affairs and on the international stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2.3 Aristocratic Notions Of
    This is a post-print version. Please refer to the published version: Charlotta Wolff, ’Aristocratic Notions of Liberty and Patriotism in the Age of Liberty’, Scandinavia in the Age of Revolution: Nordic Political Cultures, 1740–1820, ed. Pasi Ihalainen, Michael Bregnsbo, Karin Sennefelt & Patrik Winton, Ashgate, Farnham & Burlington, 2011, p. 121– 132. Chapter 2.3 Aristocratic Notions of Liberty and Patriotism in the Age of Liberty Charlotta Wolff In Sweden, as in other European countries in the early modern period, the nobility adopted the double role of both collaborator and opponent of the strengthening monarchical state. When opposing royal absolutism, the Swedish nobility would defend their liberty with arguments and concepts borrowed from a general European tradition that has often been called republican, but which could also be called patriotic.1 In the Sweden of the eighteenth century, the nobility dominated the Diet, the Council of the Realm and the highest administration. The noblemen who were active at the Diet were generally well educated, familiar with ancient Roman authors and recent French and English political literature. Their writings abound with literary references and classical commonplaces such as ‘liberty’, ‘republic’, ‘salus publica’ and ‘patriotic zeal’. The strongly European features of the Swedish nobility make the first estate of the realm a particularly interesting object of study. Although the form of government implied equal freedom and rights for all four estates, during the Age of Liberty political power was to a large extent concentrated in the aristocratic Council of the Realm and the Noble estate, while the monarchy remained weakened. The impression of Sweden being a republican monarchy governed 1 Jouanna 1989; Wolff 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Legitimacy: the Quest For
    Political Legitimacy: The Quest for the Moral Authority of the State, A Philosophical Analysis Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München vorgelegt von Anthony M. Musonda aus Zambia LMU Bibliothek, München, 2006 Referent: Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Vossenkuhl Korreferent: Dr. Stephan Sellmaier Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 28.07.2006 Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to a number of institutions and people who greatly facilitated the completion of this work. First and foremost, Professor Dr. Wilhelm Vossenkuhl the supervisor of my doctoral dissertation, for his encouragement, patience, kindness, assiduity, total dedication and capability in the critical appraisal of earlier drafts of this dissertation and his helpful suggestions. Dr. Stephan Sellmaier, the head of the Münchner Kompetenzzentrum Ethik, for being generous enough to allow me use facilities and space of the resource room for doing my work. In addition, I am grateful to Professor Vossenkuhl on behalf of the Department of Philosophy and the Münchner Kompetenzzentrum Ethik for his efforts in securing me a one-year German scholarship to help me complete my dissertation with the University of Munich. Of course, I cannot forget to register my indebtedness to the Katholischer Akademischer Ausländer-Dienst (KAAD) for their having initially offered me a scholarship to enable me do my German language course, graduate course-work and research for my dissertation. I can also not forget to thank my employers, the University of Zambia in Lusaka, and my Head of Department, Professor Clive Dillon-Malone S.J., for their unwavering support and for granting me study-leave to enable me do my doctorate in Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Events… Outcomes… Influence…
    Although it is one of the most important events in modern history, the Virginia SOL does not require that you know that much about it. So, below are the Causes, Events, and Influence of the French Revolution. Causes… The American Revolution The Enlightenment Events… Outcomes… Influence… + Independence in Storming of the Bastille End of the Absolute Monarchy of Louis XVI Latin America Toussaint Simon Bolivar L’Ouverture in South The Reign of Terror Rise of Napoleon in Haiti America You Say You Want a Revolutionrd The French Revolution didn’t just randomly happen. There were two direct causes that led the people of the 3 Estate to rise up against the King. The ideas of the Enlightenment and French participation in the American Revolution influenced the French people to view their government in new ways. THE IDEAS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT FRENCH INVOLVEMENT IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ―To become truly great, one has to stand with the people, not above them.‖ . The American colonists were the first in the new world to gain their Independence o The Americans rejected the Parliament’s right to rule them from abroad - HOW MIGHT THIS SPARK A REVOLUTION? Montesquieu . Since King George III was a tyrant; the Americans could no longer swear _________________________________________________________________ allegiance . July 4 1776: Americans declare Independence ―Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.‖ . Americans defeated the British at the Battle of Saratoga (1777) HOW MIGHT THIS SPARK A REVOLUTION? - o Convinces the French that the Americans might win _________________________________________________________________Rousseau o Benjamin Franklin negotiates alliance with the French ―The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to… bear arms is…to protect .
    [Show full text]
  • A Rhetoric of Bourgeois Revolution: the Abbé Sieyes and What Is The
    William H. Sewell, Jr. A RHETORIC OF BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION The Abbe Sieyes and What Is the Third Estate? BICENTENNIAL REFLEcnONS ON THE FRENCH REVOLlITlON A RHETORIC OF BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION A BOOK IN THE SERIES BICENTENNIAL REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION General Editors: Keith Michael Baker, Stanford University Steven Laurence Kaplan, Cornell University A RHETORIC OF BOURGEOIS REVOLUTION The Abbe Sieyes and What Is the Third Estate? William H. Sewell, Jr. DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS Durham and London 1994 © 1994 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 00 Typeset in Garamond NO·3 by Keystone Typesetting, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data appear on the lase printed page of this book. To my mother, Elizabeth Shogren Sewell CONTENTS Editor's Introduction IX Preface xix I. Introduction 2. What Is the Third Estate? 4 I 3. Political Economy, Social Contract, and Representation: The Foundations of Sieyes's Political Thought 66 4. What Is Privilege? A Rhetoric of Amnesia 109 5. What Is the Citizen? The Denial of Political Equality 145 6. An Uncontrollable Revolution 185 Epilogue: The Paradoxical History of Sieyes's Rhetorical Devices 198 Bibliography 205 Index 213 EDITORS' INTRODUCTION N PARIS, IN THIS SYMBOLIC NIGHT OF 14 JULY, NIGHT OF Ifervor and of joy, at the foot of the timeless obelisk, in this Place de la Concorde that has never been more worthy of the name, fa) great and immense voice ...will cast to the four winds of history the song expressing the ideal of the five hundred Marseillais of 1792." The words, so redolent in language and tone of the instructions for the great public festivals of the French Revolution, are those of Jack Lang, French Minister of Culture, Communications, Great Public Works, and the Bicentennial.
    [Show full text]
  • DIFFERENTIATION OR DISINTEGRATION Preserving by Renewing János Martonyi
    Iustum Aequum Salutare XIV. 2018. 2. • 319–328. SUMMA DIFFERENTIATION OR DISINTEGRATION Preserving by Renewing János Martonyi The notion of differentiation has to be clearly distinguished from the question of the share of decision-making competences between the member states and the institutions of the European Union. While the latter relates to the area of competences conferred to the Union by its members, differentiation only has relevance within the field of the conferred competences and refers to the question: to what extent differences are acceptable in the area of those competences and – in particular – what are the various legal techniques by which they can be put in place by individual member states or, more important, by certain groups of them. Differentiation has been an established practice in the European integration right from the beginning and developed numerous techniques ranging from transitional and special arrangements, derogations, opt-outs, enhanced cooperation to out-of-treaty legal instruments. It has been a useful device, a preferably transitional „second best solution” necessitated and tolerated by concrete situations, but has never been and must never become a goal or a constituting principle of the integration process. For this reason, it is only acceptable within strict limits and special care has to be taken so that the risk of fragmentation of the process can be averted. The Treaties and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice enable the Union to reinforce its external action from foreign and security policy to trade policy. The existing differences or divides are not carved in stone and cannot serve as a basis for permanent institutional differences.
    [Show full text]
  • Eberlin Von Gunzburg and the German Reformation
    This dissertation has been 64—7003 microfilmed exactly as received COLE, Richard Glenn, 1934- EBERLIN VON GUNZBURG AND THE GERMAN REFORMATION. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1963 History, modern University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan EBERLIN VON GUNZBURG AND THE GERMAN REFORMATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Richard Glenn Cole, B.A., M.A. ******* The Ohio State University 1963 Approved by Department of History ACKNOWLEDGMENT Without the guidance of my adviser, Harold J. Grimm, and the forbearance of my wife, Joie, this dissertation would not have been possible. ii CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION......... 1 Chapter I. GERMANY ON THE EVE OP THE REFORMATION....... 8 II. A SHORT BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................. 28 III. THE POLEMICAL FLUGSCHRIFTEN.................. 47 IV. EBERLIN AS AN EVANGELICAL.................... 68 V. ZEIT BRINGT RflSSLIN.......................... 91 VI. THE NEW SOCIETY................. 125 VII. CONCLUSIONS................ 146 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 154 AUTOBIOGRAPHY.................................... 166 ill INTRODUCTION Much has been written about the causes of the German Reformation and the effects of it upon later developments such as the rise of capitalism and nationalism. Comparatively few studies have been made concerning the interaction of Lutheran doctrine with German society. While it is difficult to generalize accurately on whether there was a "Lutheran ethic" or whether there were discernible changes in the mores and patterns of life in Lutheran areas, there is reason to believe that a study of the reaction of individuals as well as social groups to Luther’s Reformation may shed new light upon the interaction between the reform movement and social issues.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Germany on the Eve of Reformation
    1 Germany on the Eve of Reformation When the Habsburg Emperor Maximilian I died on 12 January 1519, rumours were rife that ships were moving down the Rhine with sacks of French gold tied to their hulls. Denied bills of exchange by the German bankers, agents of the French monarch were forced to such desperate measures in order to ensure that their king, Francis I, had enough ready wealth at his disposal to contest the pending imperial election. Opposing Francis I was Maximilian’s grandson Charles, Duke of Burgundy and King of Spain, whose agents, while conceding that ‘these devils of Frenchmen scatter gold in all directions,’ had managed to win most of the seven electors over to the Habsburg candidate using similar methods of bribes and benefices (Knecht, 1994, p. 166). Other potentates had come forward, including Henry of England and Friedrich the Wise of Saxony, but ultimately the imperial election crystallized into a contest between the Valois king of France and the Habsburg heir Charles of Ghent. And it was an event of profound importance, for in essence it was a struggle between the two most powerful sovereigns in Europe for rule over one of the largest empires of the age. All of the major European sovereigns followed the election with great interest, including the Medici Pope Leo X, who, fearing the King of Spain more than the King of France, sided with Francis I. But an imperial election was not decided by foreign powers. The electors of the Holy Roman Empire would choose the next king, and in the end Charles was elected unanimously because it was thought that the Habsburg was the best choice for the German 2 Germany on the Eve of Reformation lands.The King of France, it was believed, would not respect the liberties of the Empire, and no internal candidate had enough personal might to command the realm.
    [Show full text]
  • French Revolution Study and Exam Guide
    FRENCH REVOLUTION STUDY AND EXAM GUIDE This PDF contains a selection of sample pages from HTAV's French Revolution Study and Exam Guide Darius von Güttner Natalie Shephard Ian Lyell FRENCH REVOLUTION STUDY AND EXAM GUIDE 1 First published 2018 by: CONTENTS History Teachers’ Association of Victoria Reproduction and communication for educational purposes: Suite 105 This publication is protected by the Australian Copyright Act 134–136 Cambridge Street 1968 (the Act). The Act allows a maximum of one chapter Collingwood VIC 3066 or 10 per cent of the pages of this publication, whichever is Australia the greater, to be reproduced and/or communicated by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or the body that administers Phone 03 9417 3422 it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Fax 03 9419 4713 Limited (CAL) under the Act. For details of the CAL licence for Web www.htav.asn.au educational institutions contact: Copyright Agency Limited © HTAV 2018 Level 11, 66 Goulburn Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Telephone: (02) 9394 7600 | Facsimile: (02) 9394 7601 | French Revolution Study and Exam Guide Email: [email protected] by Darius von Guttner, Natalie Shephard and Ian Lyell. REVISION CHECKLISTS . 5 Reproduction and communication for other purposes: Revision Checklist—Area of Study 1: Causes of Revolution ISBN 978 1 8755 8514 4 Except as permitted under the Act (for example: a fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review) no part (1774 to October 1789) . .5 . Publisher: Georgina Argus of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval Revision Checklist—Area of Study 2: Consequences of Revolution Typesetting and design: Sally Bond system, communicated or transmitted in any form or by any pages Curriculum consultant: Ingrid Purnell means without prior written permission from the History (October 1789 to 1795) .
    [Show full text]
  • FEUDALISM → Definition: Political, Social and Economic System
    FEUDALISM Definition: Political, social and economic system (WHAT) that predominated in Western Europe (WHERE) between the 9th and 13th centuries (WHEN). Feudal Europe From the Atlantic ocean until Russia, from the North and Baltic seas until the Mediterranean. Carolingian Empire Division into counties and marches. 10th century Holy Roman Empire (elective emperors) After the Carolingians Insecurity Foreign invasions. - Muslims (South) (From 8th century) - Vikings / Normans (Baltic and Atlantic) (From 9th century) - Magyar and Slavs (East) Weakness of the kings No protection of people, no taxing, no army Need of nobles for assistance. VASSALAGE (MANORIAL SYSTEM) ADD TO THE DEFINITION Based on the manorial system. Manorial system (vassalage) System of personal relationships. between the king and the high nobility and high clergy; and those with nobility of lower category. Economic concessions (the manor or fief [land] and its control) in exchange of auxilium et consilium (loyalty, and military, economic and political help and advice). Sealed by the Commendation ceremony Homage and fealty (from fidelis). Kings Protection of the territory Land and their exploitation Nobles (Feudal lords) Nobles (Feudal lords) Fidelity, military help, advice and taxes King Peasants Under the protection of the nobles in exchange of work. After the Carolingian Empire Lots of kingdoms and independent states. They shared: Christianity and feudal organisation. Kings Top of feudal society. Power came from God Representatives of God on Earth. ‘Primus inter pares’ (First among equals) Weak power. Power in the hands of high nobility and clergy. KINGDOM Territory as property of the king. The king could divide it, join it with another kingdom, etc.
    [Show full text]